Criteria for determining the risk of recidivism which is a requirement for medical treatment and custody

The term "risk of repeating a crime which is a requirement for medical treatment and custody" means a case where there is a probable probability that a person subject to protective custody has committed a crime by causing a state of mental disorder again in the future, and the existence of such danger shall be determined objectively by comprehensively assessing all circumstances, such as the contents of the crime in question and the degree of mental disorder of the requester subject to protective custody at the time of sentencing, the nature and difficulty of the disease that is a cause of mental or physical disorder, the existence of an environment for continuing medical treatment, the existence of intention to prevent recidivism of the requester subject to protective custody, etc.

Article 8 (1) of the Social Protection Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] 103 decided May 22, 1984 (Gong1984, 1166)

Applicant for Custody

Applicant for Custody

Attorney Park Jong-soo

Daegu High Court Decision 90No12 delivered on April 25, 1990

The appeal is dismissed.

Each ground of appeal

The term "risk of repeating a crime which is a requirement for medical treatment and custody" means a case where there is a probable probability that a person subject to protective custody has committed a crime by causing a state of mental disorder again in the future, and the existence of such danger shall be objectively determined by comprehensively assessing all circumstances, such as the contents of the crime in question, the degree of mental disorder of the requester subject to protective custody at the time of sentencing, the nature and difficulty of treatment, the degree of difficulty of treatment, whether the applicant subject to protective custody has an environment to be continuously treated in the future, and whether the applicant subject to protective custody has intent to prevent

However, according to the evidence of the court of first instance maintained by the court below, the requester for mental disorder has been suffering from the main symptoms for about five years prior to the occurrence of the mental disorder, and has an uneasiness and depression accompanied by the isolation and unrealistic sense, etc. from the society, due to miscellaneous accidents, and where there is any mental shock caused by refusal or criticism, the so-called “daily reaction mental disorder” which temporarily shows mental disorder in the state of mental disorder, may be combined. However, the requester for mental disorder cannot be seen as having been able to be impreprisoned at any time due to the tendency of the damage from the temporary mental disorder or the risk of other acts, even if it is difficult for the requester for mental disorder to view the crime of this case as having no ability to discern things due to such mental reaction, and at least two petitioners for mental disorders cannot be viewed as having been imprisoned from the victim without any ability to contact with him/her, and thus, cannot be seen as having any other mental disorder even if they were unable to be able to treat again.

From the same view, the judgment of the court of first instance that upheld the judgment of the court of first instance that recognized the fact that the requirements for medical treatment and custody in this case were met is correct, and it is not reasonable to discuss the legal principles such as the theory of lawsuit or the rules of evidence.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Kim Yong-ju (Presiding Justice)